Panneerselvam v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.02.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Mr.Pannerselvam ...Petitioner/Accused (A1) Vs.

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Anakkavoor Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

(Crime No.45 of 2025)

...Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.45 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Thirumavalavan K For Respondent :

Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

1/6

The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 62 of BNS, in Crime No.45 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim/de-facto complainant was already a married woman; that she was friendly with the petitioner/A1 and had a sexual relationship with him; that in January 2025, the second son of the defacto complainant saw the petitioner/A1 and the de-facto complainant in a compromising position and informed his brother/elder son of the de-facto complainant and thereafter, the petitioner's mother/A2 had abused the victim/ de-facto complainant and unable to bear the humiliation, the victim committed self immolation. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1, would submit that the petitioner has not committed any positive act to abet the commission of suicide; that since the de-facto complainant felt humiliated, she committed suicide; that the de-facto complainant was aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner was getting married to another person; and that the allegations against him are false and in any case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, he prayed 2/6

for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), per contra, submitted that the victim is taking treatment, and her statement was also recorded by the learned Magistrate, in which it is stated that she was aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioner, and hence, she attempted suicide.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. This Court is of the view that it appears to be a case of a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim/de-facto complainant. Further since the children of the victim had witnessed the victim in a compromising position, the relatives had accused the victim and the occurrence is said to have taken place thereafter. It is for the prosecution to establish that the petitioner had committed the alleged offences before the trial Court.

7. Considering the nature of the allegations and the relationship between the petitioner and the victim/de-facto complainant, the custodial interrogation of 3/6

the petitioner/A1 is not required for the purpose of the investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner/A1 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy was made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

4/6

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

04.02.2025 dk To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar 2.The Inspector of Police, Anakkavoor Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

dk 04.02.2025 6/6